COURT
v.
WISCONSIN; REITANO V. CALIFORNIA; VILLAGE BOOKS, INC., ET AL. V. MARSHALL, STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY; ADULT BOOK STORE ET AL. V. SENSENBRENNER, MAYOR OF COLUMBUS; MARKS ET AL. V. CITY OF NEWPORT; WASSERMAN V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF ALHAMBRA JUDICIAL DISTRICT; STROUD V. INDIANA; MOHNEY V. INDIANA; BROWN V. UNITED STATES; MITCHUM V. TENNESSEE; JOHNSON ET AL. V. KENTUCKY; TOBALINA V. CALIFORNIA; ADLER ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA; GETMAN ET AL. V. MINNESOTA; P. A. J. THEATRES CORP. V. NEW YORK; RIDENS ET AL. V. ILLINOIS ET AL.; KNOXVILLE BOOKMART, INC., ET AL. V. TENNESSEE EX REL. WEBSTER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL; PRICE V. VIRGINIA; ALBINI ET AL. V. OHIO ET AL.; MACKEN ET AL. V. OHIO ET AL.; ELSTER V. CALIFORNIA; GOLDSTEIN V. VIRGINIA; KEITH V. CALIFORNIA; YANNUCCI V. NEW YORK; G. I. DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ET AL. V. MURPHY, POLICE COMMISSIONER OF CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.; LITTLE V. CALIFORNIA; DE SANTIS V. NEW JERSEY; WINSLOW V. VIRGINIA; TOUTANT V. CALIFORNIA; KUHNS ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA; CASTNER ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA; GULF STATES THEATRES OF LOUISIANA, INC., ET AL. V. LOUISIANA ET AL.; BRYANT ET AL. V. NORTH CAROLINA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court summarily vacated and remanded numerous state and federal court decisions involving obscenity prosecutions and regulations, reflecting the Court's reconsideration of obscenity standards following recent precedent. The decisions encompassed various cases challenging the constitutionality of state and local obscenity laws as applied to adult bookstores, theaters, and distributors of sexually explicit materials. These orders indicated the Court's determination to reassess how lower courts should apply First Amendment protections in obscenity cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Sup. Ct. Wis. Reported below: 51 Wis. 2d 683, 188 N. W. 2d 475; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Orange; Ct. App. Md. Reported below: 263 Md. 76, 282 A. 2d 126; Sup. Ct. Ohio. Reported below: See 26 Ohio App. 2d 183, 271 N. E. 2d 13; Ct. App. Ky.; C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 449 F. 2d 787; Sup. Ct. Ind. Reported below: 257 Ind. 204, 273 N. E. 2d 842; Sup. Ct. Ind. Reported below: 257 Ind. 394, 276 N. E. 2d 517; No. 71-1368. No. 71-1458. No. 71-1464. No. 71-1587. No. 71-1641. No. 71-1674. No. 71-1702. No. 72-124. No. 72-172. No. 72-357. No. 72-538. No. 72-539. No. 72-558. No. 72-569. No. 72-591. No. 72-859.
C. A. 4th Cir.; Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.; Ct. App. Ky. Reported below: 475 S. W. 2d 893; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Sacramento. Reported below: 25 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 24, 101 Cal. Rptr. 726; Sup. Ct. Minn. Reported below: 293 Minn. 11, 195 N. W. 2d 827; App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.; Sup. Ct. Ill. Reported below: 51 Ill. 2d 410, 282 N. E. 2d 691; Sup. Ct. Tenn.; Sup. Ct. Va. Reported below: 213 Va. 113, 189 S. E. 2d 324; Sup. Ct. Ohio. Reported below: 31 Ohio St. 2d 27, 285 N. E. 2d 327; Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Francisco; Sup. Ct. Va.; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles; App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d & 11th Jud. Dists.; No. 72-872. No. 72-918. No. 72-961. No. 72-994. No. 72-1062. No. 72-1071. No. 72-1072. No. 72-1221. No. 72-1330.
C. A. 2d Cir. Reported below: 469 F. 2d 752; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Orange; Super. Ct. N. J.; Sup. Ct. Va.; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Bernardino; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Santa Cruz; App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Santa Cruz; Sup. Ct. La. Reported below: 270 So. 2d 547; and Ct. App. N. C. Reported below: 16 N.
C. App. 456, 192 S. E. 2d 693.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maheu v. Hughes Tool Co., 569 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1977)…ether clear and convincing evidence of actual malice had been presented. The court concluded that it had not. United States v. Baranov, 9 Cir., 1973, 474 F. 2d 591; Wasserman v. Municipal Court, 9 Cir., 1971, 449 F. 2d 787, vacated on other grounds, 413 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 3036, 37 L.Ed.2d 1025; and Childs v. Oregon, 9 Cir., 1970, 431 F. 2d 272, rev’d on other grounds, 1971, 401 U.S. 1006, 91 S.Ct. 1248, 28 L.Ed.2d 542, are obscenity cases, which we consider to be sui generis. In each, we conducted a de novo…
-
Wasserman v. The Mun. Court OF the Alhambra Jud. Dist., 543 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1976)…L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). Wasserman became one of the numerous cases in which the Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of the new standards in Miller, supra, and other cases decided the same day. 413 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 3036, 37 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1973). On remand to the Ninth Circuit, this court, in an opinion at 502 F. 2d 764 (9 Cir. 1974), vacated the October 14, 1970, district court order and remanded the case to the district court “for further considerat…
-
Adult Book Store v. Sensenbrenner (W.D. Pa. 1975)…972). The Court of Appeals of Franklin County affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal. We granted the petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973). 413 U. S. 911 (1973). On remand, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 35 Ohio St. 2d 220, 301 N. E. 2d 695. For the reasons stated in my dissent from the remand of this case, and because the present judgment was rendered afte…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- G. I. Distribs., Inc. v. Murphy, 469 F.2d 752 (2d Cir. 1972)
- Commonwealth of Pa. v. Meyers, 449 F.2d 787 (3d Cir. 1971)
- Wasserman v. The Mun. Court OF the Alhambra Jud. Dist., 449 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1971)